369 So.3d 381
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ronald McMaster sued multiple defendants, including Union Carbide Corp. and Montello, Inc. (Relators), alleging asbestos exposure at Gulf Oil (1978–1980).
- Plaintiff obtained trial subpoenas directed generically to the corporate entities (no named witnesses; no topic descriptions) and served them on defendants’ counsel.
- Relators moved to quash the subpoenas on multiple grounds; the trial court orally denied the motion after a hearing and later issued written reasons but no written judgment.
- Relators filed a writ application to the Fourth Circuit seeking review of the denial of their motion to quash.
- The appellate court granted the writ in part and modified the trial court’s ruling to require the plaintiff to identify specific topics for any compelled corporate representative testimony at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of subpoenas to nonresident corporate defendants under La. C.C.P. art. 1352 | Subpoenas to corporate defendants are appropriate to secure live trial testimony | Subpoenas invalid because corporations are out-of-state and not subject to trial subpoenas under art. 1352 | Court declined to revisit Hayden; nonresident party defendants may be subpoenaed to appear at trial in Louisiana courts |
| Whether trial court properly applied Hayden "fundamental fairness" factors (travel costs, case complexity, potential recovery, alternative discovery) | Plaintiff argued Hayden factors support compelling appearance at trial (complex case, large potential recovery) | Relators argued trial court erred by not considering alternative discovery methods and related burdens | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion in its application; declining to treat trial as a discovery proceeding was permissible |
| Whether subpoenas must specify topics (Art. 1442–style specificity) for corporate representatives at trial | Plaintiff relied on generic corporate-representative subpoenas for trial attendance without topic-limitation | Relators argued subpoenas must identify specific topics and be limited like depositions under Art. 1442/Johnson rule | Court found no direct authority forbidding topic specification at trial but required plaintiff to identify specific topics; rejected extending Johnson deposition-limitation to trial context |
| Appropriate remedy when corporate trial subpoenas are facially generic | Plaintiff sought to compel production of corporate reps without further specificity | Relators sought quash or, alternatively, require topic identification and proof that topics were not previously covered by other reps | Court granted writ relief in part: modified trial court ruling to require plaintiff to identify specific topics for compelled corporate witnesses, but refused to impose Johnson-type precondition |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayden v. 3M Co., 211 So.3d 528 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (recognized Louisiana may subpoena nonresident party defendants to appear for trial but required a "fundamental fairness" factor analysis)
- Johnson v. Asbestos Corp., 755 So.2d 892 (La. 2000) (limits on scope of corporate depositions in asbestos cases; subsequent corporate deposition questions restricted to areas not previously covered)
- Thomas v. Weatherford Int'l, 463 So.2d 751 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1985) (standard for appellate review of trial court rulings on motions to quash)
- Bank of New Orleans & Tr. Co. v. Reed Printing & Custom Graphics, Ltd., 399 So.2d 1260 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1981) (authority cited for procedures governing subpoenas and quash motions)